Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FLINK-13541][state-processor-api] State Processor Api sets the wrong key selector when writing savepoints #9324

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sjwiesman
Copy link
Contributor

@sjwiesman sjwiesman commented Aug 1, 2019

What is the purpose of the change

The state processor api is setting the wrong key selector for its StreamConfig when writing savepoints. It uses two key selectors internally that happen to output the same value for integer keys but not in general.

Brief change log

  • set the correct key selector

Verifying this change

UT

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): no
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): no
  • The serializers: no
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): no
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: no
  • The S3 file system connector: no

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? no
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? not applicable

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Aug 1, 2019

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit 75ce1d9 (Tue Aug 06 15:56:36 UTC 2019)

Warnings:

  • No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❗ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.


The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

@sjwiesman
Copy link
Contributor Author

@flinkbot attention @tzulitai

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Aug 1, 2019

CI report:

@StephanEwen StephanEwen self-requested a review August 2, 2019 12:43
@StephanEwen StephanEwen self-assigned this Aug 2, 2019
StephanEwen pushed a commit to StephanEwen/flink that referenced this pull request Aug 2, 2019
StephanEwen pushed a commit to StephanEwen/flink that referenced this pull request Aug 2, 2019
@StephanEwen
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, @sjwiesman The fix looks good to me.

Rebasing and merging this...

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 61352fb Aug 2, 2019
asfgit pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 2, 2019
… key selector when writing savepoints

This closes #9324
becketqin pushed a commit to becketqin/flink that referenced this pull request Aug 17, 2019
becketqin pushed a commit to becketqin/flink that referenced this pull request Aug 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants